Indiana Jones 4. Honest thoughts
 

Coming from a family who loves the Indiana Jones movies, I'm half psyched there's a new one coming out ( I mean jeez, Marion is in it, it's scored by John Williams, directed by Spielberg ), and I'm half like.... Harrison Ford is 67 years old. My friend and I were having a debate about it the other night, we were watching Live Free or Die Hard where John Mcclane is climing on top of a truck and dropping into the cab and kicking the driver out with his feet, and taking control of the wheel. And one of us said " Do you think the new Indiana Jones will be any good if they have him doing stuff like this? Or should someone else be doing it because he is too old? " It's hard to say. But I have read that the movie is going to address the fact that he's getting old.

I'm looking forward to seeing it. I love all the Indiana Jones films and I haven't heard much about the upcoming film, so I don't know what t expect. If it's a stinker (which it won't be) atleast the score will be fantastic.

I really like Live Free or Die Hard and all the ones before it. Classics.

Frankly age isn't an issue. Are we saying Ford is too old or the fictious character of Indiana Jones is too old? Ford has never denied that he uses stunt doubles on the most dangerous stunts. So his health isn't at risk. Critics who say we aren't sure we want to see an "old" Indiana Jones there's this. The fans WANTED a 4th Indiana Jones, so now they are complaining he's too old? The character has drinken from the Holy Grail, so they could set this movie in the year 3000, Indiana Jones will still be alive. Old, but alive. The movie is done filming and Ford didn't get injured, so the stunts he did do for "Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls" went fine, or we would have heard otherwise. Look no matter how you cut this Ford is not going to look like he did on "Raiders", it just isn't going to happen. However seeing the pictures that were released there was one pic where he actually didn't look any older then he did in "Last Crusade".


http://www.theraider.net/films/indy4/gallery/makingof/mo_04.jpg

Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, what a cool name.

bla bla bla bla blah

Kill The Motherfucker Already

Just as long as they have that Asian kid driving a car again, I'm happy.

Fucking stupid. Another reason why I don't pay attention to mainstream film anymore -- you have to go to a fucking "independant" theater to see David Cronenberg or David Lynch films now, because the mainstream box office is so overloaded with these stupid "Hollywood blockbusters". It's ridiculous. Mainstream film has been a dying art since the mid-90's; fuck, how many AMAZING films come out nowadays? Very very few. Even Anchor Bay has dropped the ball and released shit lately (Room 6 -- need I continue?). For the record, no more sequels to old ass films and no more goddamn remakes. I mean, the Departed was a great film, right? Yeah, well, it too was a remake! Even fucking little ass dumb comedies like 'I PRONOUCE YOU FAT GUY AND STEREOTYPICAL GAY JOKES HERE WE COME!' was a remake (of the film Strange Bedfellows -- a very very loose remake but come on). Also, many of my beloved horror favorites are being subjected to remakes; for fuck's sake, they're going to remake MIIKE films soon! And a remake of Battle Royale! What the fuck?!

...so, no, I'm not excited by this, Harrison Ford IS too old and his career was SHIT so he had to do this film, and this is fucking ridiculous. You can disagree, but you said honest thoughts, right?

For the record, I haven't seen Die Hard or Live Free but I really do love the films before it. And even if it IS good, it's still a sequel to a 20 year old film.. jesus, hollywood, get some new ideas, will you?

Mainstream film has its perks.

I actually thought The Departed was crap. Haven't seen the original, so I can't make any judgments on that one.

I heard they were remaking Near Dark. Which should be super shitty.

I think the overuse of CGI has ruined a lot of mainstream movies for me. It can be used and it can look seamless, but people always want to go overboard for some reason, and abuse those capabilities that we have now.

I work at a movie theater now (not the sort that shows independent movies either). I haven't actually seen any of the movies that are out now in full, but I have seen the last 5 minutes of all of them, and they all end the same way.

With that said, I do enjoy the experience of going to the theater and seeing the blockbusters. I think when I was 8 years old my mom let me go to the movies without an adult for the first time. I went with my best friend, and the theater was packed, there wasn't a single seat left in the place. I can't remember what we saw, but I do remember that while we were all waiting for the movie to start, some kid got up in front of the screen and started to breakdance. And other people threw candy at him.

i dunno about indie jones but i sure am damn excited for THE DARK KNIGHT!

Definitely, going to Hollywood blockbuster movies, shitty ones in particular, is awesome entertainment. We crack so many jokes and be extremely douchey. I almost feel bad for the people that actually want to enjoy the movie.

Example: Superman Returns. My friend loudly says, half way through the movie, "OH!!! So that is Superman!" and later on "This is the worst Starwars movie ever."
Fo sho!

Just ignore atsonicpark, he doesn't like anything, except trying to fake his own death on Sonic Youth gossip forums.

And Lux Interior I agree, the Departed was crap.

Also, Kingdom of the crystal skull is NOT going to be the final title.

Jones not Harrison Ford. I'm honestly not worried because Spielberg said he's going to address the fact that Indy is much older. He's not too old, what I'm saying is it would be silly to have just put the costume back on him and tried to make a new Indiana Jones movie without addressing the fact that he's 23 years older than he was in Last Crusade. It would just look like a sad joke if they did that. But I know they are not going to do that.

As for the Dark Knight. I just can't get excited about it, because it is a remake of my favorite movie ever made.

I also have heard that the intent of "Crystal Skulls", is to bring the series full circle. Part of the main reason that Karen Allen is also in the film. There should be lots of refferences and probobly a good joke or hundreds of them comparing "Crystal Skulls", with "Raiders".

its not a damn remake you apple!
god when will people understand that the christopher nolan batman films are a fresh start, with non of the previous movies in mind...this is not a remake of tim burtons 80s batman film with the joker dancing around to Prince.

Sorry you are just not going to be able to sell me on that. Tim Burton's Batman is the darkest Batman movie ever made, much more than Begins. Begins had tons of various elements of the first two batman movies stitched into it. Like for example, the mob bosses sidekick guy who is eating the falaffel is completely taken from Lt. Eckhart from the 1st batman movie. They based his clothes, his apperance, the things he said, EVERYTHING on Lt. Eckhart. Also Batman talks WAYYY too much in Begins. He yells and shouts and has alot to say, very unbatman. In Batman he says " I'm Batman. Hold on. How much do you weigh? And Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight? " That's IT, much darker, much better, he doesn't scream and yell, perfect. Stating the fact that Nicholson dances to Prince in that one scene doesn't disrespect the movie one bit, that's the only scene of it's type in that film. And Prince and Elfman were perfect for the score, couldn't imagine that movie without Prince.

I just don't want to see the Joker redone is all. It was a flawless job in the original, and there is no way it's going to be as good or even close. The only thing Begins had going for it is they did a great job with Scarecrow, but he was only in 2 fucking scenes. Unforgivable

Also this






Bullshit


I mean, I pick up all kinds of shit for it but I can't help it, I hate Batman Begins for a reason. Just the way I feel. C'mon, I'm not the only one. Someone please agree with me

"Tim Burton's Batman is the darkest Batman movie ever made, much more than Begins."

Bruce wayne in Batman89 was a joke

"Like for example, the mob bosses sidekick guy who is eating the falaffel is completely taken from Lt. Eckhart from the 1st batman movie."

wasnt that Detectiv Flass the corrupt cop? have you not heard of a homage?

"very unbatman. In Batman he says " I'm Batman. Hold on. How much do you weigh? And Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight? "

you cant compare batman begins to batman 89 when trying to say whats the better batman, you have to compare them to the original source..the comics

"I just don't want to see the Joker redone is all. It was a flawless job in the original, and there is no way it's going to be even close to as good. The only thing Begins had going for it is they did a great job with Scarecrow, but he was only in 2 fucking scenes. Unforgivable"

Jack nick just played Jack nick in joker make up,(a fat old man..thats not who the joker is) it wasnt that amazing really. The only thing Batman89 had going for it was the joker..they had batman but was only in 2 or 3 fucking scenes.

hey, blue letters, what are you trying to say?

How about the fact that Batman..KILLED in Batman89..

* The choice of Keaton in the lead role was clear miscasting. No matter how good his performance—and it was—he was not physically suited for the role of Batman.
*Nicholson’s Joker overshadowed Bruce Wayne/Batman-- who is supposedly the main character.

*Wayne’s motivation for dressing up as a giant Bat and kicking the crap out of criminals is not fully explained. Why the Bat-symbol? How did he get all of his “toys?” What was the process of him becoming “The Batman?”

http://www.batman-on-film.com/opinion_jett_bat89review.html

Sorry you're wrong and I'm right. I love how even the new Batman Director said he didn't want to remake it because of how perfect Nicholson was as the spontaneously violent Joker. Then WHY DID YOU?? If you want to talk about staying true to the comics, than joker would've just been the Red Hood. The scarred criminal with the Red Hood over his head was what he originally was. Don't give me that staying true to the original comics garbage. Batman Begins was not based on Bob Kane.

God it didn't NEED to be explained, the movie took place after the fact. Specially the scene where Batman is hand carving the metal newly designed Xtreme batsymbol. Fucking bull, blasphemy, shit sandwich. Batman yells and screams, the xtreme batmobile was a shit sandwich, scarecrow was in the film less than 3 minutes, the dude was a copy of eckhart ( it was not a homage, just a ripoff ), the backstory was boring, and uninteresting, the scene with bruce waynes parents being killed in Batman was WAY darker than in begins which was just a halfassed copy of that scene to start with. I WIN I WIN I WIN!!

hes not remaking it you douche

just because you have the same character doesnt mean its freaking remake
the original source is a comic book..not batman 89

I'm done arguing about Batman. If you like it I'm sure it's good enough for you.

Mmm...I think Begins is the only Batman movie I've liked. To be fair, I watched the others when I was in the 5-9 range.

The one mistake Burton made in "Batman" (and its a huge one) was stating that it was The Joker that killed Wanye's parents. Turning Batman/Wayne from a vigilante to a man seeking vengance. That was unecessary.

Yes he changed that the joker killed his parents. That is the only thing. But I don't care because that scene scarred me for life as a child.

Anyway, I want to get back on the topic of Indiana Jones









first pictures from the movie were released 6 hours ago.

Why is Shia a...greaser?

the question is alex

why arnt you a greaser?

the Batmobile in Begins looks a lot like the BatTank from Dark Knight Returns, so why they didn't go all the way with that I dunno. The bike that'll be in the second film however looks goddamn-fuckin'-goofy and is there for no other reason but selling toys.
Sam Hamms first draft for Batman (http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/batman_early.html) had a lot more screen time for Batman doing his thing, developing Bruce Wayne as a character, and so on. But of course Tim Burton has to screw everything up with his 'unique' 'artistic vision' - although we have been spared the worst of what he intended: one of the Wayans brothers as Robin!
Only thing I've liked about the 89 film is Anton Fursts production design (another place Begins fails, they made Gotham a normal looking city).

indiana jones will be 67 and will suffer of terrible backache, and works in a musuem where dusts antique bones,
suddenly on a dino bone finds an incision and it's a treasure's map.
so he takes his plane and goes in a jungle. he sleeps in a bungalows and is on painkillers (he is american, isnt'it?:) ) and then hears a nois from the closet. he gets prepared to fight, but out of the closet comes his son, the 23 years old orlando bloom who studies anthropology in oxford and wants to follow his father (they dont see each other from a long time).
they start adventure together, bang bang, kaboom, a plane crashes, there are wizards, the go in a cave, they eat condor eggs. orlando meets an indio woman and make love. the day after he has a strange painting in his stomach and that's the new map! so they find the treasure, the bad ones arrive, orlando saves indiana. the treasure actually is something disappointing and moral. they leave it there and get ready to go home, orlando chooses to say in jungle with the girl, indiana goes back to the museum and he still has backache.
two years later he receive a postcard with a picture of his grandson climbing a gorilla's tail in a fire forest.

burton's original batman film is the only good batman movie. it's dark and near-humorless. a perfect film (except when he flies up with the batwing to the moon -- how cheesy was that?). batman begins was just TERRIBLE. it BLOWS MY MIND that people think that was good. an overlong piece of shit.

adam west's original batman movie was pretty good too.

enough with the mothereffing batty boy, this is the MIGHTY INDIANA we're talking about, and no matter what I'll go see this one... fuck, I didn't know they had it done already!
I'll be totally honest - I usually don't give a shit about mainstream, it's just a matter of what it's all about: a good movie can be independently released or not, still if it's good it gets me going, and that should be just the way to go.
I ADORE David Lynch, I ADORE David Cronenberg, I ADORE John Carpenter and George A. Romero, but sometimes a mainstream flick gets me going.
THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES comes to mind (with a killer soundtrack to it).
JACOB'S LADDER also.
ANGEL HEART, too.

Then there are a few flicks, like GHOSTBUSTERS, or THE GOONIES, which are undoubtly mainstream and a franchise, but went on to be a part of who I am, along with INDIANA JONES. I was an effin' 5 y.o. kid when I got into that stuff, and it's pure eighties.
I recently re-watched THE LAST CRUSADE and I was kind of... "well, sure... that ain't the greatest thing now". But I was thrilled nonetheless - that was very entertaining.

So, hell yeah, once in a while, let's get groovy with some big thing like that.

PS: LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD was a good one and I honestly enjoyed that also - partly probably becuz it was the first movie I saw in an american theater. Very cool.

PPS: the uncool factor was the multi-plex huge bulding that hosts a bunch of theaters in just one place. You know what I am talking about. These things came out pretty recently in Sardinia (ITALY) which is my small island and they destroyed the traditional cinema.

I really hate this side of the cinema nowadays.

I don't want big seats, a digital projector, a fucking air conditioning system, and I don't wanna have to order for my seats via fucking EMAIL.
It was just perfect when it was the old way - get early or get busted, sit in the place, one ticket gets you through the whole fucking evening...
those were the times.

Batman Begins has Qui Gonn in it. Enough reason for me to never watch it.

As for the new Indiana Jones movie, I have serious doubts about it being good. When was the last time George Lucas did something sensible? When he brought Kasdan and Kirshner in on ESB?

Good call SpectralJulianIsNotDead, Frank Darabont has told a story about a script he wrote back in 2002 which everyone involved loved and wanted to get started on as soon as possible but then Lucas chimes in with "nah...I don't like it".
I wish Short Round was returning:(.

He's a greaser because it takes place in the 50's. The age of greasers



(except when he flies up with the batwing to the moon -- how cheesy was that?). WTF??????? If by cheesy you mean the most exciting moment of my life in a movie theater.

The first Batman was pretty class, nice balance of cheesy and dark, but that's not the one you need to compare Batman Begins to. Its a response to the nauseating, overly camp post-Burton films. Batman and Robin for fuck's sake.

It's like the last Bond film, it needed to be beefy and played completely straight to clear out all the shit that had backed up in the franchise, which it did.

you know River Phoenix was going to take over the role of Indiana Jones. Sad.

dick off jack!

"Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" would have been a lot cooler if River Phoenix had been in it.

^ hell yeah! Everything would be so much better if River Phoenix was in it.